Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.817 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68) | 0.730 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.430, 0.174 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.029 | 0.137 | -0.297, 0.239 | 0.831 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.293 | 0.198 | -0.094, 0.681 | 0.139 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.826, 0.666 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.236 | 0.257 | -0.739, 0.267 | 0.359 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 0.372 | 0.307, 1.77 | 0.006 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.504 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.712 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.638 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.689 | 0.411 | -0.116, 1.49 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 0.597 | 0.021, 2.36 | 0.047 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.185 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.261 | -0.479, 0.543 | 0.902 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.021 | 0.180 | -0.332, 0.374 | 0.908 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.316 | 0.261 | -0.195, 0.828 | 0.227 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.291 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.412 | -0.463, 1.15 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.411 | 0.263 | -0.104, 0.926 | 0.120 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.393 | 0.381 | -0.355, 1.14 | 0.305 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.545, 0.913 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.363 | 0.215 | -0.059, 0.784 | 0.093 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.276 | 0.312 | -0.337, 0.888 | 0.379 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.304 | -0.987, 0.203 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.066 | 0.216 | -0.358, 0.490 | 0.761 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.767 | 0.314 | 0.152, 1.38 | 0.015 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.876 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.239 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.52 | 0.681 | -2.85, -0.186 | 0.027 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.122 | 0.989 | -1.82, 2.06 | 0.902 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.408 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.577 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.380 | 0.353 | -0.312, 1.07 | 0.283 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.274 | 0.513 | -0.731, 1.28 | 0.594 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.515 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.729 | -0.588, 2.27 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.349 | 0.439 | -0.510, 1.21 | 0.427 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.276 | 0.637 | -0.972, 1.52 | 0.665 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.643 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.909 | -0.414, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.20 | 0.501 | 0.222, 2.19 | 0.017 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.110 | 0.728 | -1.54, 1.32 | 0.880 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.335 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.474 | -0.576, 1.28 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.345 | 0.267 | -0.178, 0.868 | 0.198 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.002 | 0.388 | -0.758, 0.761 | 0.997 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.542 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.767 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.817 | 0.443 | -0.052, 1.69 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.220 | 0.644 | -1.04, 1.48 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.627 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.887 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.06 | 0.488 | 0.101, 2.01 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.162 | 0.709 | -1.55, 1.23 | 0.819 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.390 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.551 | -0.321, 1.84 | 0.169 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.732 | 0.353 | 0.040, 1.42 | 0.039 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.522 | 0.512 | -0.482, 1.53 | 0.309 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.050, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.117 | 0.217 | -0.542, 0.307 | 0.588 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.467 | 0.315 | -0.149, 1.08 | 0.139 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.403 | -0.398, 1.18 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.368 | 0.239 | -0.099, 0.836 | 0.124 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 0.347 | -0.355, 1.00 | 0.350 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.416 | -0.120, 1.51 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.293 | 0.231 | -0.159, 0.745 | 0.205 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.257 | 0.335 | -0.400, 0.913 | 0.444 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.539 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.762 | -0.406, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.675 | 0.403 | -0.115, 1.47 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.569 | 0.586 | -0.579, 1.72 | 0.333 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.818 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.156 | -3.48, 1.05 | 0.294 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.805 | 0.642 | -2.06, 0.452 | 0.211 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.53 | 0.932 | -3.36, 0.293 | 0.101 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.447 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.633 | -0.232, 2.25 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.408 | 0.346 | -0.271, 1.09 | 0.241 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.500 | 0.503 | -0.486, 1.49 | 0.322 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.363 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.514 | 0.001, 2.01 | 0.051 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.560 | 0.309 | -0.046, 1.17 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.340 | 0.449 | -0.540, 1.22 | 0.450 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.772 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.091 | -0.123, 4.15 | 0.066 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.966 | 0.600 | -0.210, 2.14 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.836 | 0.872 | -0.872, 2.55 | 0.339 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.140 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.198 | -0.461, 0.317 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.222 | 0.166 | -0.548, 0.104 | 0.184 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.320 | 0.241 | -0.151, 0.791 | 0.185 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.310 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.439 | -0.140, 1.58 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.636 | 0.323 | 0.003, 1.27 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.669 | 0.468 | -1.59, 0.248 | 0.154 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.533 | -0.581, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.640 | 0.345 | -0.037, 1.32 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.309 | 0.501 | -0.672, 1.29 | 0.538 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.618 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.874 | -0.529, 2.90 | 0.177 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.29 | 0.582 | 0.144, 2.43 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.378 | 0.844 | -2.03, 1.28 | 0.655 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.402 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.569 | -0.587, 1.64 | 0.354 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.757 | 0.338 | 0.095, 1.42 | 0.026 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.052 | 0.490 | -0.909, 1.01 | 0.916 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.224 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.316 | -0.628, 0.612 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.208 | 0.244 | -0.270, 0.687 | 0.395 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.531 | 0.354 | -0.162, 1.22 | 0.134 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.390 | -0.852, 0.676 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.481 | 0.283 | -1.03, 0.073 | 0.091 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.485 | 0.410 | -1.29, 0.318 | 0.238 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.396 | 0.266 | -0.917, 0.125 | 0.138 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.675 | 0.386 | -1.43, 0.081 | 0.082 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.332 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.470 | -1.00, 0.841 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.539 | 0.272 | -1.07, -0.007 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.252 | 0.395 | -1.03, 0.522 | 0.524 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.333 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.471 | -0.516, 1.33 | 0.387 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.361 | 0.268 | -0.885, 0.163 | 0.179 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.660 | 0.389 | -1.42, 0.102 | 0.091 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.934 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.321 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.30 | 0.686 | -2.64, 0.048 | 0.060 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.53 | 0.997 | -3.48, 0.429 | 0.128 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(428) = 29.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(428) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.24], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.68], t(428) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(428) = 66.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.27], t(428) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.31, 1.77], t(428) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(428) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(428) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.49], t(428) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.02, 2.36], t(428) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [3.78e-03, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(428) = 63.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.37], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.908; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.83], t(428) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(428) = 59.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(428) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.93], t(428) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.14], t(428) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(428) = 49.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78], t(428) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.89], t(428) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(428) = 46.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(428) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49], t(428) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.15, 1.38], t(428) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.06, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(428) = 35.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(428) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.85, -0.19], t(428) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.82, 2.06], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(428) = 54.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(428) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.07], t(428) = 1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.28], t(428) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(428) = 47.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.21], t(428) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.52], t(428) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(428) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.22, 2.19], t(428) = 2.40, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.32], t(428) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(428) = 31.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(428) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.87], t(428) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76], t(428) = 3.94e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 4.10e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.07, 16.19], t(428) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.31e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(428) = -3.01e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.35e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.69], t(428) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-8.77e-03, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.48], t(428) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(428) = 34.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(428) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.10, 2.01], t(428) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.23], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(428) = 41.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(428) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.04, 1.42], t(428) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [9.13e-03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.53], t(428) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(428) = 52.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(428) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.31], t(428) = -0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.08], t(428) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(428) = 58.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.84], t(428) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.00], t(428) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(428) = 42.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.74], t(428) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.91], t(428) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(428) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(428) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.47], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.72], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(428) = 34.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(428) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.45], t(428) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.29], t(428) = -1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(428) = 30.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(428) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.09], t(428) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.49], t(428) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(428) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [1.14e-03, 2.01], t(428) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.78e-04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.17], t(428) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.22], t(428) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(428) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.14], t(428) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.55], t(428) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(428) = 91.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(428) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10], t(428) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.79], t(428) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(428) = 46.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(428) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [3.13e-03, 1.27], t(428) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [8.99e-04, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.25], t(428) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(428) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.32], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-8.64e-03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.29], t(428) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(428) = 44.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [0.14, 2.43], t(428) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.28], t(428) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(428) = 46.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(428) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.10, 1.42], t(428) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.01], t(428) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(428) = 64.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(428) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.69], t(428) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.22], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(428) = 42.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.07], t(428) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.32], t(428) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(428) = 32.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.12], t(428) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.08], t(428) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(428) = 30.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(428) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.07, -6.51e-03], t(428) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, -1.75e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.52], t(428) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(428) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.16], t(428) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.10], t(428) = -1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(428) = 31.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.05], t(428) = -1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 4.57e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.43], t(428) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,386.655 | 1,398.874 | -690.327 | 1,380.655 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,389.172 | 1,413.610 | -688.586 | 1,377.172 | 3.483 | 3 | 0.323 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,106.383 | 2,118.602 | -1,050.192 | 2,100.383 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,102.141 | 2,126.579 | -1,045.070 | 2,090.141 | 10.242 | 3 | 0.017 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,613.397 | 2,625.616 | -1,303.699 | 2,607.397 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,597.478 | 2,621.916 | -1,292.739 | 2,585.478 | 21.920 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,778.469 | 1,790.689 | -886.235 | 1,772.469 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,780.885 | 1,805.323 | -884.442 | 1,768.885 | 3.585 | 3 | 0.310 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,159.533 | 2,171.752 | -1,076.767 | 2,153.533 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,153.339 | 2,177.777 | -1,070.669 | 2,141.339 | 12.195 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,039.680 | 2,051.899 | -1,016.840 | 2,033.680 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,034.514 | 2,058.952 | -1,011.257 | 2,022.514 | 11.166 | 3 | 0.011 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,929.670 | 1,941.889 | -961.835 | 1,923.670 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,922.180 | 1,946.619 | -955.090 | 1,910.180 | 13.489 | 3 | 0.004 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,066.013 | 3,078.232 | -1,530.007 | 3,060.013 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,062.310 | 3,086.748 | -1,525.155 | 3,050.310 | 9.703 | 3 | 0.021 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,431.902 | 2,444.122 | -1,212.951 | 2,425.902 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,433.621 | 2,458.059 | -1,210.810 | 2,421.621 | 4.282 | 3 | 0.233 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,628.751 | 2,640.971 | -1,311.376 | 2,622.751 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,630.448 | 2,654.886 | -1,309.224 | 2,618.448 | 4.303 | 3 | 0.231 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,800.379 | 2,812.599 | -1,397.190 | 2,794.379 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,794.367 | 2,818.806 | -1,391.184 | 2,782.367 | 12.012 | 3 | 0.007 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,233.038 | 2,245.257 | -1,113.519 | 2,227.038 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,235.297 | 2,259.735 | -1,111.649 | 2,223.297 | 3.741 | 3 | 0.291 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,664.285 | 2,676.504 | -1,329.142 | 2,658.285 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,662.127 | 2,686.565 | -1,325.063 | 2,650.127 | 8.158 | 3 | 0.043 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,774.107 | 2,786.326 | -1,384.053 | 2,768.107 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,772.449 | 2,796.887 | -1,380.224 | 2,760.449 | 7.658 | 3 | 0.054 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,420.330 | 2,432.549 | -1,207.165 | 2,414.330 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,407.818 | 2,432.256 | -1,197.909 | 2,395.818 | 18.512 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,013.640 | 2,025.859 | -1,003.820 | 2,007.640 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,009.445 | 2,033.884 | -998.723 | 1,997.445 | 10.195 | 3 | 0.017 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,116.960 | 2,129.179 | -1,055.480 | 2,110.960 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,111.446 | 2,135.884 | -1,049.723 | 2,099.446 | 11.514 | 3 | 0.009 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,122.457 | 2,134.676 | -1,058.228 | 2,116.457 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,117.945 | 2,142.384 | -1,052.973 | 2,105.945 | 10.511 | 3 | 0.015 |
els | null | 3 | 2,636.032 | 2,648.251 | -1,315.016 | 2,630.032 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,627.888 | 2,652.326 | -1,307.944 | 2,615.888 | 14.145 | 3 | 0.003 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,015.160 | 3,027.379 | -1,504.580 | 3,009.160 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,005.366 | 3,029.805 | -1,496.683 | 2,993.366 | 15.793 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,482.431 | 2,494.650 | -1,238.216 | 2,476.431 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,477.196 | 2,501.635 | -1,232.598 | 2,465.196 | 11.235 | 3 | 0.011 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,337.296 | 2,349.515 | -1,165.648 | 2,331.296 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,327.318 | 2,351.757 | -1,157.659 | 2,315.318 | 15.978 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,961.346 | 2,973.565 | -1,477.673 | 2,955.346 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,952.046 | 2,976.484 | -1,470.023 | 2,940.046 | 15.301 | 3 | 0.002 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,591.140 | 1,603.359 | -792.570 | 1,585.140 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,594.916 | 1,619.355 | -791.458 | 1,582.916 | 2.223 | 3 | 0.527 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,250.192 | 2,262.411 | -1,122.096 | 2,244.192 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,251.043 | 2,275.482 | -1,119.522 | 2,239.043 | 5.149 | 3 | 0.161 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,387.537 | 2,399.756 | -1,190.768 | 2,381.537 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,382.249 | 2,406.687 | -1,185.124 | 2,370.249 | 11.288 | 3 | 0.010 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,822.287 | 2,834.506 | -1,408.144 | 2,816.287 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,819.775 | 2,844.213 | -1,403.887 | 2,807.775 | 8.513 | 3 | 0.037 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,416.382 | 2,428.601 | -1,205.191 | 2,410.382 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,411.409 | 2,435.847 | -1,199.704 | 2,399.409 | 10.973 | 3 | 0.012 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,982.771 | 1,994.990 | -988.385 | 1,976.771 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,979.359 | 2,003.797 | -983.680 | 1,967.359 | 9.412 | 3 | 0.024 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,151.772 | 2,163.991 | -1,072.886 | 2,145.772 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,144.048 | 2,168.486 | -1,066.024 | 2,132.048 | 13.724 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,227.965 | 2,240.185 | -1,110.983 | 2,221.965 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,217.455 | 2,241.893 | -1,102.728 | 2,205.455 | 16.510 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,242.754 | 2,254.973 | -1,118.377 | 2,236.754 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,237.181 | 2,261.620 | -1,112.591 | 2,225.181 | 11.573 | 3 | 0.009 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,242.646 | 2,254.865 | -1,118.323 | 2,236.646 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,233.795 | 2,258.234 | -1,110.898 | 2,221.795 | 14.850 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,111.139 | 3,123.358 | -1,552.569 | 3,105.139 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,098.817 | 3,123.256 | -1,543.409 | 3,086.817 | 18.321 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.407 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 97 | 3.17 ± 1.20 | 0.030 | 87 | 3.34 ± 1.20 | -0.267 | 0.353 | -0.167 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 97 | 17.64 ± 2.87 | 0.129 | 87 | 18.60 ± 2.83 | -0.439 | 0.024 | -0.524 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.63 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.63 | 0.638 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 97 | 30.38 ± 5.28 | -0.237 | 87 | 31.90 ± 5.16 | -0.647 | 0.048 | -0.526 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.06 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.06 | 0.902 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 97 | 11.64 ± 1.97 | -0.016 | 87 | 11.99 ± 1.95 | -0.263 | 0.230 | -0.272 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.25 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.25 | 0.404 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 97 | 17.59 ± 3.09 | -0.220 | 87 | 18.33 ± 3.03 | -0.431 | 0.104 | -0.395 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.121 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 97 | 13.51 ± 2.76 | -0.238 | 87 | 13.97 ± 2.70 | -0.420 | 0.255 | -0.302 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.198 | 0.254 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 97 | 10.02 ± 2.31 | -0.043 | 87 | 10.39 ± 2.28 | -0.540 | 0.268 | -0.243 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.80 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.80 | 0.300 | 0.268 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 97 | 29.98 ± 9.15 | 0.316 | 87 | 28.81 ± 8.92 | 0.291 | 0.382 | 0.243 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 97 | 22.44 ± 4.31 | -0.152 | 87 | 22.71 ± 4.22 | -0.261 | 0.673 | -0.106 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.76 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.76 | 0.250 | -0.271 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 97 | 24.85 ± 5.43 | -0.112 | 87 | 25.97 ± 5.31 | -0.201 | 0.160 | -0.359 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.19 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.19 | 0.133 | -0.387 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 97 | 20.87 ± 6.71 | -0.340 | 87 | 22.13 ± 6.54 | -0.309 | 0.199 | -0.355 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.74 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.74 | 0.458 | -0.187 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 97 | 10.99 ± 3.50 | -0.183 | 87 | 11.35 ± 3.42 | -0.184 | 0.489 | -0.188 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 97 | 15.94 ± 5.69 | -0.261 | 87 | 16.16 ± 5.56 | -0.331 | 0.791 | -0.070 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.01 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.01 | 0.719 | -0.093 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 97 | 22.61 ± 6.55 | -0.307 | 87 | 22.77 ± 6.38 | -0.260 | 0.869 | -0.046 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.36 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.36 | 0.169 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 97 | 16.91 ± 4.14 | -0.292 | 87 | 18.19 ± 4.06 | -0.501 | 0.035 | -0.512 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.80 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.80 | 0.036 | -0.485 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 97 | 13.05 ± 2.64 | 0.077 | 87 | 14.26 ± 2.59 | -0.228 | 0.002 | -0.789 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.331 | -0.232 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 97 | 17.13 ± 3.00 | -0.218 | 87 | 17.85 ± 2.93 | -0.410 | 0.102 | -0.424 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.096 | -0.427 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 97 | 12.70 ± 3.07 | -0.180 | 87 | 13.65 ± 3.00 | -0.338 | 0.034 | -0.585 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.03 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.03 | 0.155 | -0.383 | ||
els | 2nd | 97 | 29.84 ± 5.61 | -0.237 | 87 | 31.50 ± 5.46 | -0.438 | 0.043 | -0.583 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.14 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.14 | 0.294 | 0.268 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 97 | 27.07 ± 8.54 | 0.178 | 87 | 24.32 ± 8.33 | 0.516 | 0.028 | 0.607 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.00 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.00 | 0.112 | -0.413 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 97 | 14.25 ± 4.67 | -0.167 | 87 | 15.76 ± 4.55 | -0.371 | 0.027 | -0.617 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.06 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.06 | 0.051 | -0.460 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 97 | 15.89 ± 3.83 | -0.256 | 87 | 17.24 ± 3.75 | -0.411 | 0.016 | -0.615 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.63 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.63 | 0.066 | -0.476 | ||
shs | 2nd | 97 | 30.13 ± 8.05 | -0.228 | 87 | 32.99 ± 7.85 | -0.426 | 0.016 | -0.673 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.57 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.57 | 0.717 | 0.060 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 97 | 12.58 ± 1.54 | 0.185 | 87 | 12.83 ± 1.53 | -0.082 | 0.274 | -0.207 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.47 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.47 | 0.102 | -0.312 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 97 | 15.00 ± 3.35 | -0.276 | 87 | 15.05 ± 3.31 | 0.014 | 0.918 | -0.022 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.189 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 97 | 13.79 ± 4.01 | -0.261 | 87 | 14.56 ± 3.94 | -0.387 | 0.188 | -0.316 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.91 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.91 | 0.177 | -0.286 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 97 | 28.80 ± 6.59 | -0.311 | 87 | 29.60 ± 6.48 | -0.219 | 0.404 | -0.195 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.50 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.50 | 0.354 | -0.221 | ||
empower | 2nd | 97 | 19.61 ± 4.23 | -0.317 | 87 | 20.19 ± 4.14 | -0.339 | 0.349 | -0.243 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.50 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.50 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 97 | 14.57 ± 2.43 | -0.119 | 87 | 15.09 ± 2.41 | -0.423 | 0.143 | -0.299 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.822 | 0.044 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 97 | 11.31 ± 2.97 | 0.238 | 87 | 10.74 ± 2.94 | 0.479 | 0.190 | 0.284 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.119 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 97 | 10.00 ± 3.41 | 0.211 | 87 | 9.55 ± 3.33 | 0.570 | 0.365 | 0.240 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.042 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 97 | 9.64 ± 3.49 | 0.281 | 87 | 9.31 ± 3.41 | 0.412 | 0.514 | 0.173 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.73 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.73 | 0.387 | -0.216 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 97 | 8.35 ± 3.49 | 0.191 | 87 | 8.10 ± 3.41 | 0.540 | 0.621 | 0.133 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.44 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.44 | 0.676 | -0.114 | ||
sss | 2nd | 97 | 27.99 ± 9.69 | 0.268 | 87 | 27.02 ± 9.43 | 0.584 | 0.491 | 0.201 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(392.03) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)
2st
t(422.24) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.51)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(325.78) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(388.80) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.78)
ras_confidence
1st
t(302.41) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(363.51) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.04)
ras_willingness
1st
t(330.12) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)
2st
t(392.42) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)
ras_goal
1st
t(316.69) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)
2st
t(380.21) = 1.63, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.62)
ras_reliance
1st
t(302.71) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(363.92) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.25)
ras_domination
1st
t(336.49) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(397.25) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.04)
symptom
1st
t(296.74) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(355.62) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.45)
slof_work
1st
t(310.35) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)
2st
t(373.32) = 0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.50)
slof_relationship
1st
t(307.97) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(370.53) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.67)
satisfaction
1st
t(297.13) = 1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)
2st
t(356.18) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.18)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(299.60) = 0.74, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(359.70) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)
mhc_social
1st
t(302.74) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(363.95) = 0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.85)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(296.87) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(355.80) = 0.17, p = 0.869, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.03)
resilisnce
1st
t(317.10) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(380.62) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.47)
social_provision
1st
t(310.28) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(373.24) = 3.14, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.97)
els_value_living
1st
t(305.82) = 0.97, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(367.89) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(297.64) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)
2st
t(356.92) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.83)
els
1st
t(292.73) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(349.54) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.26)
social_connect
1st
t(297.84) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(357.20) = -2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-5.20 to -0.30)
shs_agency
1st
t(296.30) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)
2st
t(354.97) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.84)
shs_pathway
1st
t(308.04) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)
2st
t(370.61) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.45)
shs
1st
t(296.84) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)
2st
t(355.76) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.54 to 5.16)
esteem
1st
t(376.09) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(417.40) = 1.09, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st
t(343.42) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(401.89) = 0.10, p = 0.918, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.02)
mlq_presence
1st
t(318.81) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(382.34) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.93)
mlq
1st
t(323.71) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.90)
2st
t(386.96) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.70)
empower
1st
t(306.05) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)
2st
t(368.18) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.79)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(354.54) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(408.23) = 1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.23)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(340.08) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(399.73) = -1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.28)
sss_affective
1st
t(302.78) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(364.00) = -0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.53)
sss_behavior
1st
t(302.69) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)
2st
t(363.88) = -0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.67)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(300.48) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(360.91) = -0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.75)
sss
1st
t(290.97) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(346.73) = -0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.75 to 1.80)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(222.82) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.55)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(204.26) = 2.97, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(197.91) = 4.34, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (1.03 to 2.73)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(205.43) = 1.78, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.71)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(201.81) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.35)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(198.00) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.09)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(207.14) = 3.66, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.28)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(196.35) = -1.95, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.02)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(200.09) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.39)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(199.44) = 1.35, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.54)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(196.45) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(197.14) = 1.23, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(198.01) = 2.22, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.96)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(196.38) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.91)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(201.92) = 3.38, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.99)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(200.07) = 1.53, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(198.85) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(196.60) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(195.23) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.08)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(196.65) = -3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.67 to -1.00)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(196.22) = 2.49, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.63)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(199.46) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.54)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(196.37) = 2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.05)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(218.03) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.44)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(209.00) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.64)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(202.38) = 2.61, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(203.70) = 1.48, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.11)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(198.91) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(212.01) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.24)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(208.10) = -3.25, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.38)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(198.02) = -3.83, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.52)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(197.99) = -2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.36 to -0.23)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(197.38) = -3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.46)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(194.73) = -3.90, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.25 to -1.39)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(211.23) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.24)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(197.84) = -0.92, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.27)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(193.31) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.50)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(198.67) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.38)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(196.09) = 1.56, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.93)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(193.37) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.79)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(199.90) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.49)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(192.20) = -2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.86 to -0.18)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(194.86) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.08)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(194.40) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.21)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(192.28) = 2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.19)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(192.76) = 1.29, p = 0.396, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.87)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(193.38) = 1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.69)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(192.23) = 2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.02)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(196.17) = 2.07, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.43)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(194.85) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.31)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(193.98) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.84)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(192.38) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.75)
els
1st vs 2st
t(191.41) = 1.67, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.47)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(192.42) = -1.25, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.46)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(192.11) = 1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.09)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(194.41) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(192.22) = 1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.15)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(207.74) = -1.33, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.11)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(201.23) = 1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.27)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(196.50) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.32)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(197.44) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.43)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(194.03) = 2.24, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.42)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(203.39) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.69)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(200.59) = -1.70, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.08)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(193.39) = -1.49, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.13)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(193.37) = -1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.08 to -0.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(192.94) = -1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.17)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(191.05) = -1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.06)